|
mechs
|
 |
July 16, 2013, 12:36:33 AM |
|
I agree with you Bug. However, just trying to make it more palatable to everyone. Hey maybe if we do the rollback, Doog will give back the 120 himself out of his own coins and take that smaller loss. 120BTC loss better than the current 1050BTC which he is prepared to take. We just need to come to some sort of fair resolition, not just for Doog, but for the investors who made no errors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"There should not be any signed int. If you've found a signed int
somewhere, please tell me (within the next 25 years please) and I'll
change it to unsigned int." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
sgravina
|
|
July 16, 2013, 12:37:51 AM |
|
I think he should roll it back. Provided he actually can. And that he can demonstrate that those bets were stolen and not actual bets.
1300 BTC were not stolen. Bets were stolen and those bets put 1300 BTC into the bankroll. Without Doog's mistake the investors would be down another 1300 BTC. I think that is fair because that is what should have happened.
well actually only needs to give 1050 BTC back since he got 130 BTC as a 10% investor and celeste returned 120 BTC If a roll-back is performed he should probably return celeste's donation as well. I would like celeste to keep playing, TBH. His expected return over the last 2 days was -1700 BTC. He just got lucky. I would agree to give all the donations back, including Celeste's. I would also welcome her back. She will help fill the debt with her amazing system. In practice you can't ban Celeste because She can easily create a new ID. |
|
|
|
|
|
xaviarlol
|
|
July 16, 2013, 01:11:29 AM |
|
I for one would like to help Doog as much as possible with this.
I'm sure a lot of people here agree. The best way to do this is to up the commission temporarily until the debt is paid. 30% or something like that would work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
mechs
|
|
July 16, 2013, 01:17:31 AM |
|
This really should be discussed in a private channel amoung verified investors to find the best solution.
|
|
|
|
|
RationalSpeculator
Sr. Member
 Offline
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
This bull will try to shake you off. Hold tight!
|
|
July 16, 2013, 01:18:25 AM |
|
First of all I'm really sorry for what happened Dooglus.  I understand you feel bad that you made a mistake However the way you solved this is not fair towards you. If a manager of a company makes a mistake, then that mistake is payed by the company, not with the private capital of the manager. If investors don't like it, they can leave, ofcourse after the mistake is charged to the company/all investors. In this case the investors don't even lose as the costly mistake went straight into their pocket.  Please treat yourself better. Losing 1300 btc private capital unjustly can push one into depression, and understandably so! Nobody gains here with you being treated unjustly and getting depressed. You deserve to be treated fairly, by others, and by yourself! Warm hugs |
|
|
|
|
|
Bugpowder
|
|
July 16, 2013, 01:59:18 AM |
|
It's fraudulent betting. The fraudulent bets should be busted, and rolled back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
mechs
|
|
July 16, 2013, 02:09:28 AM |
|
Now is the time to do this - noone has divested yet (of any significance at least). Once a couple people divest then there will be no way to do a fair roll back
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bugpowder
|
|
July 16, 2013, 02:09:59 AM |
|
Now is the time to do this - noone has divested yet (of any significance at least). Once a couple people divest then there will be no way to do a fair roll back
yep. |
|
|
|
|
|
Deprived
|
|
July 16, 2013, 02:14:48 AM |
|
It's fraudulent betting. The fraudulent bets should be busted, and rolled back.
If that were a good idea it would have need to have been done immediately. Doing it now would apply the losses to wheoever is currently invested - not to whoever was invested at the time (you can't apply the losses to anyone who withdrew or gambled away their investment since etc). In general I agree with the point that losses made whilst running the business should fall on investors rather than on dooglus - but having announced he was paying it AND allowed withdrawals since it can't really be changed now. |
|
|
|
|
|
Bugpowder
|
|
July 16, 2013, 02:27:03 AM |
|
It's fraudulent betting. The fraudulent bets should be busted, and rolled back.
If that were a good idea it would have need to have been done immediately. Doing it now would apply the losses to wheoever is currently invested - not to whoever was invested at the time (you can't apply the losses to anyone who withdrew or gambled away their investment since etc). In general I agree with the point that losses made whilst running the business should fall on investors rather than on dooglus - but having announced he was paying it AND allowed withdrawals since it can't really be changed now. It can be changed now. He can just do it. As for withdrawals, since when did that stop paypal from doing a chargeback  |
|
|
|
|
|
mechs
|
|
July 16, 2013, 02:31:58 AM |
|
If it has not left the site, he can still perform a clawback. This really is the most fair resolution followed by returning all donations.
|
|
|
|
|
julz
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001
|
|
July 16, 2013, 02:34:08 AM |
|
It's fraudulent betting. The fraudulent bets should be busted, and rolled back.
Careful. Philosophically it's perhaps just betting - with stolen money. Would you want the investors to be liable for someone who deposited stolen bitcoins and then gambled them away just because it happened to be traceable exactly where they were stolen from? Investors have made decisions on whether /how much to stay invested based on the results seen on the site. Any 'rollback', especially a late one, sets bad precedents from the point of views of both gamblers and investors. If dooglus wants to maintain faith in the site - and recoup the loss for his mistake - it would be better in my opinion to do it via a temporarily increased commission to repay him once the site gets back in profit. |
@electricwings BM-GtyD5exuDJ2kvEbr41XchkC8x9hPxdFd
|
|
|
romerun
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1001
Bitcoin is new, makes sense to hodl.
|
|
July 16, 2013, 02:37:15 AM |
|
jeez, it's not "just dice", it's full of drama.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deprived
|
|
July 16, 2013, 02:59:04 AM |
|
It's fraudulent betting. The fraudulent bets should be busted, and rolled back.
If that were a good idea it would have need to have been done immediately. Doing it now would apply the losses to wheoever is currently invested - not to whoever was invested at the time (you can't apply the losses to anyone who withdrew or gambled away their investment since etc). In general I agree with the point that losses made whilst running the business should fall on investors rather than on dooglus - but having announced he was paying it AND allowed withdrawals since it can't really be changed now. It can be changed now. He can just do it. As for withdrawals, since when did that stop paypal from doing a chargeback It isn't simply a dcase of "just" doing it. Some people will have invested/divested whilst specific bets happened. So the exact state for every bet would have to be worked out and the losses from that bet applied to those invested when it occurred. You can't, for example, take away funds from someone who had divested before the bets then invested again afterwards. And, strange as it may seem, a roll-back, could in theory also INCREASE some balances - if they happened to only be invested on rolls that he lost. It isn't just a case of applying a 1300 BTC 'loss' now. Having made an announcement of what was happening I don't see how he can change his mind now anyway - and discussing it just encourages FUD with potentially investors trying to withdraw to avoid any claw-back (and new investors wary that they may get penalised for somethng that occurred before they even deposited). Had the error been noticed promptly then I agree a roll-back would have been the best way to go - with the losses to investors then recouped by reduced commission until it was paid off. But he made his call on how to handle it - so we should just move on from there. |
|
|
|
|
|
shawshankinmate37927
|
|
July 16, 2013, 03:02:20 AM |
|
If the illegitimate bets had been winning bets, would the bettor have been paid? (allowed to withdraw) I hope not. Likewise, because the illegitimate bets were losing bets, the investors should not profit from them. I say reverse the illegitimate bets, if at all possible.
Just let us know when a final decision has been made on what, if anything, is going to be done to resolve it so we can determine what to do. How does an investor calculate how much he profited from these illegitimate bets?
|
"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford
|
|
|
|
mechs
|
|
July 16, 2013, 03:08:27 AM |
|
It is your share of the bankroll on 1300 BTC essentially. So if you have 1% of the bankroll, you receive 13 BTC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bugpowder
|
|
July 16, 2013, 03:22:59 AM |
|
It's fraudulent betting. The fraudulent bets should be busted, and rolled back.
If that were a good idea it would have need to have been done immediately. Doing it now would apply the losses to wheoever is currently invested - not to whoever was invested at the time (you can't apply the losses to anyone who withdrew or gambled away their investment since etc). In general I agree with the point that losses made whilst running the business should fall on investors rather than on dooglus - but having announced he was paying it AND allowed withdrawals since it can't really be changed now. It can be changed now. He can just do it. As for withdrawals, since when did that stop paypal from doing a chargeback It isn't simply a dcase of "just" doing it. Some people will have invested/divested whilst specific bets happened. So the exact state for every bet would have to be worked out and the losses from that bet applied to those invested when it occurred. You can't, for example, take away funds from someone who had divested before the bets then invested again afterwards. And, strange as it may seem, a roll-back, could in theory also INCREASE some balances - if they happened to only be invested on rolls that he lost. It isn't just a case of applying a 1300 BTC 'loss' now. Having made an announcement of what was happening I don't see how he can change his mind now anyway - and discussing it just encourages FUD with potentially investors trying to withdraw to avoid any claw-back (and new investors wary that they may get penalised for somethng that occurred before they even deposited). Had the error been noticed promptly then I agree a roll-back would have been the best way to go - with the losses to investors then recouped by reduced commission until it was paid off. But he made his call on how to handle it - so we should just move on from there. We are talking in practice not in theory. He has logs, it would be simple to work out where those bets went. Investment is up not down. Hot wallet is limited in size so withdrawals have been minor. But yeah, it is up to him. |
|
|
|
|
|
mechs
|
|
July 16, 2013, 03:28:27 AM |
|
At this point all we can do is wait for Doog to make a decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
shawshankinmate37927
|
|
July 16, 2013, 03:34:14 AM |
|
It is your share of the bankroll on 1300 BTC essentially. So if you have 1% of the bankroll, you receive 13 BTC
Okay, thanks. Don't be too hard on yourself over this dooglus. When you look back on this a year from now it'll just be a minor speedbump you encountered enroute to success. Keep up the good work, but don't work too hard and stress yourself out. Sounds like you need something else to take your mind off of JD from time to time. |
"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford
|
|
|
RationalSpeculator
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
This bull will try to shake you off. Hold tight!
|
|
July 16, 2013, 03:35:34 AM |
|
It isn't simply a dcase of "just" doing it. Some people will have invested/divested whilst specific bets happened. So the exact state for every bet would have to be worked out and the losses from that bet applied to those invested when it occurred. You can't, for example, take away funds from someone who had divested before the bets then invested again afterwards.
And, strange as it may seem, a roll-back, could in theory also INCREASE some balances - if they happened to only be invested on rolls that he lost.
It isn't just a case of applying a 1300 BTC 'loss' now.
Having made an announcement of what was happening I don't see how he can change his mind now anyway - and discussing it just encourages FUD with potentially investors trying to withdraw to avoid any claw-back (and new investors wary that they may get penalised for somethng that occurred before they even deposited). Had the error been noticed promptly then I agree a roll-back would have been the best way to go - with the losses to investors then recouped by reduced commission until it was paid off.
But he made his call on how to handle it - so we should just move on from there.
So it's ok that dooglus loses 1300 btc private capital to investors because rolling back is 'complex' and 'he made the call'. I strongly disagree. |
|
|
|
|
|
